Efficiency I

We are often told that we must use our resources more efficiently. Many of those so instructing us seem to have an irrational love of trees and a disdain for 'clear-cutting.' I am reminded of one of my old professors who argued that much of our wealth in this country was due to the fact we logged the forests with methods considered wasteful. Were they efficient? Can 'efficient' be wasteful? It doesn't seem possible to an environmentalist, does it? Just what is 'efficient?'

A good argument can be made that those so-called wasteful practices that gave us so much wealth allowed us to develope new technologies more rapidly that, in turn, reduced our use of resources. It seems to me that the last few decades have been devoted to trying to force the issue of saving resources in such a manner that eats up our wealth with no real payoffs. We have incurred huge amounts of debt in the process.

So, now let me be so politically incorrect as to introduce theology into the discussion of efficiency. I am not a qualified theologian, but I can play with certain concepts. Why do we not have real input from theology? At least we might have more honesty with some high powered theologians looking over our shoulder. This goes double for the shoulders of our so-called scientists.

Do we have anything to suggest what God's thoughts are on efficiency? How about the Sabbath? Some people think we need to be going 24/7. What about God's directive that we allow the earth to rest by not planting every seventh year. Do you know about a Jubilee? After seven sets of seven, there was to be a second consecutive year of no farming, the fiftieth year. That meant that three years of grain, etc. had to be saved by the end of the forty-eighth year (is this 'wealth building?') in order to make it through to the harvest in the fifty-first year. And on it went.. Who would consider this 'efficient?' Did it promote success?

God also instructed farmers not to go back over their fields at the harvest. Anything missed the first time was to be left for the poor to glean. Nor were the farmers to harvest the corners of their fields for the same reason. Could we say that God doesn't want us to sqeeze the last bit of whatever out of some things we do? Does it mean it will be wasted?

Should consequences, especially undesirable ones, be considered in assessing 'true' efficiency? Is efficiency sometimes a very poor yardstick? Do we need to look further ahead in time for consequences? Should we "think outside the box?" (I hate that expression, but it fits here). Consider for a moment whether modern 'efficient' farming and industrial production methods took away poor peoples' industriousness and sense of worth, necessitating the 'welfare state.' Instead of "outside the box," let us think within the context. Is the context in which the efficiency is measured too narrow? Broaden it. Evaluate other things that could be affected. Look ahead in time. Where will it lead? Is it really efficient if it wouldn't be done without a government mandate or underwriting (tax incentive or stimulus payout)?

Was it efficient to mandate a change in emissions in all areas of the country? If you believe in "global warming"/"climate change," you get one answer. If you believe it is only 'pollution' and a local problem, you get a different one. I don't believe drivers in Montana or most of mid America or even most of most states needed to do anything about emissions. Nor do I believe that little old ladies driving only a few thousand miles a year needed to comply. Of course I am influenced by my bias --- I believe the whole change in emissions was a fraud and wrong, probably evil to boot. A study of the history of the actions of pro Japanese lobbyists from the mid 1960s on might be more useful than all of the excuses from EPA and the rest. (Never forget that the very same EPA that now says CO2 is harmful is the EPA that required more CO2 in emissions in the first place).

(Isn't getting rid of all the old cars, aka "clunkers," kind of like "clear cutting" but without the benefits? It is like what the enviro-whackos perceive "clear cutting" to be. By the way, I would assert that the reason we attacked the forests with such vigor in the 1970s and onward was because of the imbalance created when we started buying so many Japanese vehicles. We needed something to export that the Japanese wanted, and that was wood).

At best, the vision of those who forced emissions change on us was only short-sighted. It never faced the problem. It was only a bandaid and a dirty one at that, which would start a worse infection.

We still haven't examined whether vehicles with changed emissions are more fuel efficient. I have put that off until the last because I feel that is the least important part. There is a lot to discuss that has always been left unsaid. Why would that be? There is so much that I am going to make it a separate unit. (Please look for Efficiency 2, coming soon).